I recently purchased a Taipan 28. This is a Hong Kong-built near exact copy of the Cheoy Lee Offshore 27 (of course, with one foot added). There''s an article on Sailnet that has this very boat on a successful Atlantic crossing, but I''d like additional opinions on her capabilities, both coastal and offshore. Since there are surely many more CL 27s out there, and these boats are so similar in design and specs, I''d be interested to know what CL 27 owners have to say about that boat.

I don''t know these boats first hand but from the ''numbers'' this is probably not a very good offshore boat. To begin with she has a very short waterline length which would mean a rolly/pitchy motion given her beam. With her wooden spars, narrow beam,low ballast ratio, low density ballast (I believe these boats were ballasted with concrete and scrap iron), comparatively shallow draft, and heavy teak interior (and on some boats teak decks)they would have a very high VCG and so would be a tender boat as well. With her high L/D, low stability, and short waterline length she would be limited in the amount of gear and supplies that she can safely carry. With her short waterline length she would be slow meaning that she would need to carry a lot more stores than a faster boat on a longer passage. They have very small fuel tanks and moderately water tanks and no good place to place additional tankage where the stability of the boat and/or primary storage would not be further compromised.

I just saw the whole thread in which you indicate that this is a close relative of a Newell Cadet.I does not appear that this an exact sistership of the Cheoy Lee- Newell Cadet (AKA Offshore 27) but is very close. I am quite familar with the Cadet and based on my knowledge of the Newell Cadets this even more strongly reinforces my opinion of the numbers which is that these are pretty poor boats for offshore work. (Not all that great for coastal work either.)

Thanks for your sober comments, but I''d like to respectfully disagree with some of your comments. She is, like all narrow-beamed boats, a bit tender - but the trade off, of course, is much better righting moment and a quicker boat, albeit with less storage. Important too that I''m not talking about a circumnavigation here. Having said that, in the time since I first posted, I discovered a Sailnet article in which Alex Baldwin describes a rather circuitous two-way Atlantic crossing in a Taipan 28. He praises the boat as a reliable and "plucky" cruiser. By "by the numbers" I meant how the boat rates according to the various values on Sail Calc, for example: capsize ratio is 1.5 (<2 being considered good for "heavy weather" sailing); motion comfort is mid-range (35); hull-speed is just over 6 knots, etc. Overall, the rating comes out better than a Contessa 32, a famous blue-water passage maker. I appreciate your insights, Jeff, but it''s obvious your bias is toward larger boats. Fair enough, but not all of us (and certainly NOT me) can afford big boats.

First of all, I suggest that you are highly mistaken about my preferences in boats. For most of my sailing life I have owned 25 to 28 footers (including a wooden Folkboat and 1939 Stadel Cutter). My bias is towards boats that are well designed regardless of their length. For example, I am a big fan of the H-28 and the Folkboat for the same reasons I don''t especially like the Newell Cadet.

My post was about your specific question. You asked about seaworthiness and the ''numbers'' and that was what I was responding to. If you don''t like my response do not seek a non-existant prejudice to explain it away. My response probably does reflect my personal prejudice toward well designed small boats rather than boats whose designs were concieved not as a response to seaworthy design principles but whose lines are corrupted by the desire to beat some arbitrary racing rule (in the case of the Newell Cadet that rule was the RORC which was a very close cousin of the CCA rule).

To comment on your specific points, with a low ballast ratio, low density ballast, heavy decks and topsides, and a heavy rig, despite the narrow beam, boats like these have comparatively small angles of positive righting moment and can require a fairly large righting force to come back up. They are rarely designed to prevent downflooding meaning that once overturned they have a small chance of survival.

As I have said many times before on this and other venues, the capsize screen ratio tells you absolutely nothing at all about a boats likelihood of capsizing and motion comfort index tells you less than nothing about the motion comfort of a boat. Neither formula contains such key factors as vertical center or gravity, vertical center of buoyancy, buoyancy and weight distribution, vertical center of effort, waterline beam, deck house and topsides volume or any of the other factors that actually control motion and ultimate stability. To explain, I typically give the example of two identical boats except that one has 1000 lbs of lead at the top of its mast. In reality the boat with the 1000 lbs of lead at the top of the mast would be more prone to capsize and more prone to an extremely high angles of rolling and pitching motion that would have high accellerations at the end of the swing. In other words you would expect that boat to do more poorly both from a motion comfort and capsize standpoint. Yet, if you compared the capsize screen ratio and motion comfort index results, the boat with the 1000 lb lead weight up its mast would have better ''numbers''.

Similarly, the hullspeed number tells you very little about the real hullspeed of a boat like that. Longer waterline 28 footers(in other words, a 28 footer that was designed to be cruised rather than raced, or go offshore safely and comfortably) of the same displacement are likely to have a more easily driven hull and so would spend more of its life closer to its hull speed, a hull speed that would be higher to begin with. Short waterline boats like these spend very little of their life at or near hullspeed.

In any event, we all buy boats that appeal to each of us from one standpoint or another. Obviously this boat appeals to you and that is a good thing. BUT if you ask a question and you get a serious answer, then with all due respect, I see little point in an ad hominem attack on the person responding to your inquiry.

Not meant as an ad hominem attack. I only meant to go by the evidence of one of your previous posts in which you state (and I''m paraphrasing) ''no boat in the 25-29 foot range is suitable for an offshore passage.'' (correct me if that''s wrong). No offence intended, so please don''t take any. As I stated before, I appreciate reading your exchanges on this forum; and indeed, I did ask for opinions. But, to get back to the constructive part of the exercise: as for the weight aloft, many Taipans were either built with (or converted to) aluminum masts. Mine hasn''t been, but could be. Further, many aluminum spared boat have all kinds of crap aloft (radar, radar reflector, spreader lights, etc.) that while one might consider necessary, would add to the problem you state, evening the score somewhat. BTW, displacement is nearly 4 tons, with a 1.5 tons of ballast, no teak deck (anymore, at least), a small cockpit, so not much area to fill up if pooped. As far as downflooding is concerned, if the washboards are in, she''s as tight as a drum, just like any other boat. Have I understood that correctly?

Again, sorry if I caused offence. Your post did prompt me to examine some other numbers. I wasn''t able to find the formula for vertical center of gravity - presumably it would involve quantifying weight of the mast, etc., something it wouldn''t be a simple task to do. In my research, however, I did find this from Adlard Coles'' Heavy Weather Sailing baseed on his research "The effects of large movements of the VCG on the propensity to capsize was surprising small." I did find the formula for angle of vanishing stability (AVS), and pulling the raw numbers from the original Taipan 28 specs, I calculate it to be 183 degrees - exceptionally good from what I''ve read. L/D (lift/drag, right?) - can''t imagine that would be remarkable for this boat or for any other modified full-keeler, but then we are talking about cruisers not racers, right?

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.